White v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.

Summary

The dissent would have concluded that the plaintiff sufficiently invoked the malfunction theory through his pleadings, summary-judgment submissions, citations to relevant authority, and arguments that circumstantial and eyewitness evidence could establish a defect without expert testimony. It further would have held that the evidence concerning a nearly new vehicle that ignited during ordinary use created a genuine issue of material fact, even though the vehicle and an exemplar were available for inspection. The dissent therefore would have reversed the judgment affirming summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. Justice Eveleigh, joined by Justice Espinosa, dissented from the majority's conclusions on preservation, the summary-judgment posture, and the applicability of the malfunction doctrine.